ILLUSTRATIONS 


OP 


Human   Vivisection 


"Gross  abuses  in  any  profession  should 
not  be  hushed  up,  but  should  rather  be 
made  public  as  freely  as  possible,  so  as 
to  rouse  public  opinion  against  them  and 
thus  render  their  repetition  or  spread 
impossible.  .  .  .  The  whole  medical 
profession  must  reprobate  cruelties  such 
as  these  perpetrated  in  the  name  of 
science."— British  Medical  Journal. 


VIVISECTION     REFORM     SOCIETY 
1906 


VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY 

has  been  incorporated  as  the  exponent  of  the  principle  which  demands,  not  the 
total  abolition  of  a  scientific  method,  but  prevention  of  the  abuses  which  pertain 
to  it.  Within  certain  limitations,  and  for  certain  definite  objects,  it  regards  such 
experimentation  as  legitimate  and  right.  Carried  on  beyond  these  bounds, 
vivisection  becomes  monstrous  and  cruel,  a  menace  to  humanity,  an  injury  to 
the  cause  of  science. 

The  Society  is  utterly  opposed  to  human  vivisection  as  illustrated  in  this 
pamphlet,  no  matter  what  may  be  the  eminence  of  the  men  who  practice  and 
defend  it. 

The  vivisection  of  animals,  carried  on  without  legal  regulation,  sometimes 
constitutes  a  form  of  scientific  torture,  which,  in  the  words  of  the  late  Dr.  Henry 
J.  Bigelow  of  Harvard  Medical  School,  "is  more  terrible,  by  its  refinement  and 
the  efforts  to  prolong  it,  than  burning  at  the  stake."  We  shall  aim  to  make 
this  cruelty  impossible,  except  as  a  crime. 

To  suppress  such  abuses  as  are  admitted  to  exist,  and  to  effect  this  without 
interference  with  any  form  of  research  conducted  under  State  supervision  <  and 
guarded  against  abuse,  is  the  object  of  the  Society. 

The  Vivisection  Reform  Society  appeals,  therefore,  for  encouragement 
and  support  to  all  who  have  at  heart  the  honor  and  interest  of  scientific  advance- 
ment and  the  prevention  of  injustice  and  cruelty. 

The  fee  for  annual  membership  is  $2.00;  for  life  membership,  $25.00. 


VIVISECTION 
REFORM    SOCIETY 


Incorporated  in  1903,  under  the  Laws 
of  the  United  States 


PRESIDENT 


David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.  D..  LL.  I). 

Late  President  of  the  Polytechnic  Institute,  Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

SECRETARY  TREASURER 

Sydney  Richmond  Taber  Edward  M.  Samuel 

532  Monadnock  Block,  Chicago,  III.  109  Rialto  Building,  Chicago,  III. 

DIRECTORS 

David  H.  Cochran,  Ph.D.,  LL.  D Brooklyn,  N.  Y. 

Hon.  James  M.  Brown,  Counsellor  at  Law            .....  Toledo,  Ohio 

Titus  Munson  Coan,  M.  D.             ,                .  New  York  City 

Sydney  Richmond  Taber,  Counsellor  at  Law Chicago,  111. 

VICE-PRESIDENTS 

His  Eminence,  Cardinal  James  Gibbons Baltimore,  Md. 

Prof.  Goldwin  Smith,  D.  C.  L.,  LL.  D Toronto 

Prof.  John  Bascom,  D.  D.,  LL.  D.,    ex-President  of  University  of 

Wisconsin         ..........  Williamstown,  Mass. 

Hon.  Jacob  M.  Gallinger,  M.  D.,  TJ.  S.  Senator             ....  Concord,  N.  H. 

Hon.  Arba  N.  Waterman,  LL.  D.,  ex-Judge  of  Illinois  Appellate  Court  Chicago,  III. 

Francis  Fisher  Brown,  Editor  of  "  The  Dial " Chicago,  III. 

Edward  H.  Clement,  Editor  of  "Evening  Transcript"  .  .  .  Boston,  Mass. 
Henry  M.  Field,  M.  D.,  late  Emeritus  Professor  of  Therapeutics, 

Dartmouth  Medical  College             .......  Pasadena,  Gal. 

Charles  W.  Dulles,  M.  D.,  Lecturer  on  History  of  Medicine,  University 

of  Pennsylvania       .         .        . Philadelphia 

Alfonso  David  Rockwell,  M.  D New  York  City 

Samuel  A.  Jones,  M.  D.        .         . Ann  Arbor,  Mich. 

Rev.  Frederic  Rowland  Marvin,  M.  D.        .        ...         .        .         .  Albany,  JSf.  Y. 

James  H.  Glass,  M.  D.,  Surgeon  of  Utica  City  Hospital      .         .        .  TJtica,  N.  Y. 

Rev.  Francis  H.  Rowley,  D.  D.,  Pastor  of  First  Baptist  Church        .  Boston,  Mass. 

Rev.  Leverett  W.  Spring,  D.  D.,  Professor  of  English  Literature  in 

Williams  College      ,  Williamstown,  Mass. 


PREFACE. 

In  the  following'  pages  are  given  a  few  illustrations  of  the  great  vice  of 
modern  science,  known  as  Human  Vivisection.  Much  that  could  be  brought 
forward  is  not  included;  for  some  of  the  worst  cases  of  American  experimenta- 
tion are  too  loathsome  for  publication  except  for  special  circulation.  Enough 
is  given  in  these  pages  to  afford  any  reader  the  means  for  judging  the  morality 
of  this  practice. 

One  distinction  must  be  carefully  noted. 

The  phrase  Human  Vivisection  must  not  be  taken  as  having  any  reference 
to  the  experimental  use  by  physicians  of  new  methods  or  new  remedies,  with  a 
view  to  the  benefit  of  the  patient.  To  such  tests  there  can  be  no  objection.  But 
Human  Vivisection  is  something  entirely  different.  It  may  be  denned  as  the 
practice  of  subjecting  human  beings,  men,  women  and  children,  who  are  patients 
in  public  charitable  institutions,  hospitals  or  asylums,  to  experiments  involving 
pain,  distress,  mutilation,  disease  or  danger  to  life,  for  no  object  connected  with 
their  individual  benefit,  but  for  scientific  purposes. 

The  attention  of  the  reader  is  called  to  the  following  points : 

First.  The  instances  of  human  vivisection  here  presented  may  be  found  re- 
corded in  medical  books  or  journals  printed  in  the  English  language,  to  which 
reference  is  made. 

Second.  No  experiment  is  quoted  in  full;  considerations  of  space  forbid. 
Italics  are  ours. 

Of  what  use,  some  will  ask,  is  such  a  revelation  of  evil  deeds  ? 

It  is  necessary.  Before  any  reform  can  be  hoped  for,  there  must  be  such 
exposure  as  shall,  sooner  or  later,  awaken  an  effective  public  condemnation. 

Herein  are  delineated  oppression  of  the  weak,  cruelty  to  the  defenseless, 
injustice  to  the  poor,  violation  of  human  rights.     Are  these  of  no  account? 

For  reform,  what  is  necessary? 

First.  Investigation;  such  careful  inquiry  by  the  general  public  as  shall 
lead  to  recognition  of  the  reality  of  the  evil,  and  of  the  attitude  of  the  medical 
profession. 

Second.  Investigation  as  to  the  relation  existing  between  human  vivisec- 
tion, and  the  vivisection  of  animals  as  now  carried  on  in  this  country. 

Third.  Such  absolute  condemnation  of  this  hideous  practice  by  the  leading 
medical  associations  of  the  United  States  as  shall  stamp  the  human  vivisector 
with  ignominy  and  disrepute. 

Fourth.  Such  state  and  national  legislation  as  shall  make  the*  human  vivi- 
section-experiments herein  delineated  a  crime  against  the  commonwealth. 

Are  these  unreasonable  demands? 

An  expression  of  the  opinion  of  every  reader  of  this  pamphlet  is  requested. 

S.  R.  T. 


ILLUSTRATIONS  OF  HUMAN  VIVISECTION. 


EXPERIMENTS  WITH    POISON. 

In  the  study  of  poisons  and  their  effects  under  different  circumstances,  a 
large  number  of  experiments  upon  human  beings  have  been  made.  Doubtless,  in 
a  few  cases,  such  experiments  have  been  made  by  enthusiastic  scientists  upon 
themselves,  but  this  form  of  generous  martyrdom  is  rare;  and  far  more  often  the 
"material"  has  consisted  of  the  poorer  class  of  patients  in  public  institutions. 
The  superiority  of  human  beings  as  material  for  scientific  investigations  of  this 
kind  is  undoubted,  and  has  long  been  recognized.  A  distinguished  experimenter 
upon  the  lower  animals,  Dr.  Horatio  C.  Wood  of  Philadelphia,  once  said  very 
plainly  that  ''no  experiments  on  animals  are  absolutely  satisfactory  unless  con- 
firmed  upon  man  himself."1  Equally  clear  in  the  recognition  of  the  defects 
of  animals  as  material  in  certain  experiments  is  the  statement  made  by  Dr.  W. 
W.  Keen,  Dr.  S.  Weir  Mitchell  and  Dr.  Geo.  R.  Morehouse  in  their  report  upon  a 
phase  of  the  subject  which,  at  one  time,  occupied  their  attention.  They  assure 
us  plainly  that  certain  facts — "very  curious  facts,"  they  are  called — "could  cer- 
tainly not  have  been  learned  from  any  course  of  experiments  upon  animals  lower 
than  man."  This  grouping  of  man  with  other  vivisectible  animals  may  shock 
one  at  first,  but  science,  as  a  rule,  has  no  regard  for  sentimental  distinctions. 

Regarding  the  inferiority  of  experiments  with  poisons  made  upon  animals, 
and  the  improper  and  inaccurate  conclusions  so  frequently  deduced  therefrom, 
Dr.  Keen  and  his  associates  are  outspoken.     For  example,  they  tell  us : 

''It  is  not  unfit  that  we  should  criticize  the  loose  way  in  which  therapeutic  inferences 
have  been  drawn  from  experiments  upon  animals,  where  of  necessity  poisonous  doses  have 
been  employed,  and  their  effects  studied.  .  .  .  Even  when  these  drugs  are  given  in 
poisonous  doses  to  animals,  it  -does  not  follow  that  the  resultant  symptoms  will,  either  in 
degree  or  in  kind,  correspond  accurately  to  those  which  occur  under  like  circumstances  in 
man.""1 

In  support  of  this  conclusion,  Dr.  Keen  and  his  associates  give  very  strik- 
ing illustrations.  One  of  them — Dr.  Weir  Mitchell — proved  that  to  kill  a  snap- 
ping-turtle  with  a  certain  poison  it  requires  no  less  than  fourteen  times  the  dose 
Ithat  will  kill  a  rabbit,  the  difference  in  weight  being  taken  into  account.  "We 
ourselves  have  seen  a  deg  recover  after  the  subcuticular  injection  of  twenty- 
five  grains  of  atropia" — a  dose  far  greater  than  is  sufficient  to  kill  a  man.  Con- 
cerning a  certain  conclusion  from  various  experiments,  Dr.  Keen  and  associates 
make  what  we  must  regard  as  a  very  noteworthy  criticism  when  they  tell  us  that 
although  the  positive  evidence  in  favor  of  a  certain  conclusion  has  gained 
largely,  yet 

"it  has  been  shown  repeatedly  that  the  negative  evidence  derived  from  experiments  on  animals 
is  not  1o  bs  trusted,  although  to  it  Dr.  Brown-Scquard  has  given  the  sanction  of  his  great 
authority."3 

\     The  American  Journal  of  the  Medical  Sciences,  Philadelphia,  published  by  Henry 

C.  Lea,  Vol.  85  (N.  S.,  59),  No.  CXVII  (New  Series),  p.  52. 
2.     Same,  published  by  Blanchard  &  Lea,  New  Series,  Vol.  50,  No.  XCIX  (New  Series), 
p.  69. 
3.     Same,  p.  70. 

5 


When  we  remember  that  Brown-Sequard  was  perhaps  the  most  ruthless  ex- 
perimenter upon  animals  that  ever  lived,  a  scientist  whose  renown  as  a  vivisector 
belonged  to  two  continents,  this  impeachment  of  his  conclusions  based  upon  ani- 
mal experimentation  is  certainly  significant. 

It  by  no  means  follows  that  these  writers  regard  animal  experimentation 
as  useless  in  the  study  of  poisons.  It  has,  they  tell  us,  a  certain  value.  But  to 
appreciate  properly  a  poisonous  agent,  its  effects  must  be  studied  upon  a  wide 
range  of  created  things,  beginning  perhaps  in  vegetables  and  ending  in  human 
beings.  But  let  us  state  this  conclusion  in  their  own  vivid  and  vigorous  lan- 
guage : 

"It  would  be  easy  to  extend  these  examples,  and  to  show,  not  that  we  should  cease  to 
use  animals  for  the  study  of  poisons,  but  that  in  order  to  appreciate  properly  any  toxic 
[poisonous]  agent,  we  must  follow  its  effects  through  a  wide  range  of  created  existence  from 
vegetable  to  man,  and  that  its  therapeutic  uses  are  to  be  learned  only  from  its  influence  upon 
the  being  to  whom  finally  it  is  to  be  of  medicinal  value."3 

Do  we  read  this  aright?  To  study  properly  any  poison,  must  we  invariably 
''follow  its  effects  .  .  .  from  vegetable  to  man"?  Up  to  man?  Science 
"must"  do  this?  Let  us  see  whither  this  peculiar  doctrine  appears  to  have  led 
certain  scientific  enthusiasts,  when  unrestrained  by  other  considerations. 

One  of  the  boldest  investigators  in  this  direction  was  Dr.  Sydney  Ringer 
of  England.  As  physician  to  the  University  College  Hospital  of  London,  he  en- 
joyed unusual  opportunities  for  testing  various  poisons  and  poisonous  substances 
upon  the  charity  patients  who  had  confided  themselves  to  his  care.  To  his 
credit  it  must  be  said  that  he  made  no  secret  of  his  experimentation ;  he  told  his 
medical  brethren  exactly  what  he  was  doing;  many  of  his  experiments  upon  his 
simple-minded  patients  are  related  in  his  own  work  on  Therapeutics — published 
in  this  country  by  William  Wood  &  Co.  of  New  York  City. 

Poisoning  with  Salicine.  Of  his  investigations  with  this  substance,  Dr. 
Ringer  writes  at  considerable  length,  and  with  noteworthy  frankness : 

"In  conjunction  with  Mr.  Bury,  I  have  made  some  investigations  concerning  the  action 
of  salicine  on  the  human  body,  using  healthy  children  for  our  experiments,  to  whom  we 
gave  doses  sufficient  to  produce  toxic  [poisonous]  symptoms.  We  tested  the  effects  of 
salicine  in  three  sets  of  experiments,  on  three  healthy  lads.  To  the  two  first,  we  gave  large 
doses  and  produced  decided  symptoms.     . 

Under  toxic,  but  not  dangerous  doses,  the  headache  is  often  very  severe,  so  that  the 
patient  buries  his  head  in  the  pillow.  There  may  be  very  marked  muscular  weakness  and 
tremor.  .  .  .  There  are  often  slight  spasmodic  twitchings  when  a  limb  is  raised.  .  .  . 
The  respiration  is  hurried,  sometimes  deepened,  sometimes  sighing  and  shallow  and  almost 
panting,    .     .     .    but  the  patient  does  not  complain  of  any  difficulty  of  breathing.    .     .     . 

Our  first  set  of  experiments  was  made  on  a  lad  aged  ten.  .  .  During  the  investiga- 
tion he  was  kept  in  bed,  but  was  allowed  to  sit  up  in  it.  He  was  admitted  with  bella- 
donna poisoning,  but  our  observations  were  not  commenced  till  some  days  after  his  complete 
recovery."* 

This  patient  was  therefore  experimented  on  after  his  complete  recovery, 
and  when  he  should  have  been  discharged  from  the  hospital  and  sent  home  as 
cured.  Among  the  effects  recorded  during  this  experiment  are  "severe  frontal 
headache,  ...  so  severe  that  the  lad  shut  his  eyes  and  buried  his  head  in  his 

3.     Same,  p.  70. 

\     A  Handbook  of  Therapeutics,  by  Sydney  Ringer,  M.  D.,  8th  Ed.     New  York.    Pub- 
lished by  William  Wood  &  Co.     Pp.  584,  585,  586,  588. 

6 


arm" — "became  very  dull  and  stupid,  lying  with  his  eyes  closed" — "complained 
•of  tingling  like  pins  and  needles" — and  other  symptoms  indicating  severe  depres- 
sion.4 

"The  next  series  of  observations  were  made  on  a  lad  aged  nine,  convalescent 
from  pneumonia,,  his  temperature  having  become  normal  ten  days  previously. 
We  experimented  somewhat  differently.     The  boy  was  kept  in  bed."4 

In  this  case,  the  symptoms  produced  by  the  poison  were  such  as  to  cause 
■considerable  alarm,  especially  as  they  did  not  seem  to  abate  with  the  discon- 
tinuance of  the  poison.     Dr.  Ringer  states : 

"We  noticed  that  his  face  was  flushed  and  he  looked  dull,  and  that  there  was  some 
tremor  when  his  hand  was  held  out.  In  the  evening  the  tremors  were  more  marked.  At 
five  a.  m.  the  following  day  he  twice  vomited.  On  this  day  .  .  .  his  symptoms  were  very 
marked;  .  .  .  slight  tremor  of  the  lips  on  speaking,  and  thick  husky  voice;  breathing 
rather  labored;  .  .  .  slight  spasmodic  movements  of  the  upper  limbs;  .  .  .  grasping 
power  weaker.  .  .  .  These  symptoms  were  at  their  height  at  midday,  and  were  so  marked, 
and  the  pulse  and  respirations  so  quick,  that  we  must  confess  we  felt  a  little  relief  when  the 
toxic  [poisonous]  symptoms,  which  became  far  more  marked  than  we  expected,  abated ;  not 
that  at  any  time  the  boy  was  dangerously  ill  [!],  but,  as  the  symptoms  progressed,  after 
discontinuing  the  medicine,  we  did  not  know  Iwzu  long,  and  to  what  degree,  they  might  in- 
crease."* 

What  a  confession !  Suppose  this  lad  had  died  ?  To  what  responsibility 
would  the  law  have  held  Dr.  Ringer?     To  none? 

Poisoning  with  Gelsemium.  "Gelsemium  is  a  powerful  paralyzer  and  res- 
piratory poison  ...  In  order  to  test  the  effects  of  gelsemium  on  man,  I 
gave  it  to  six  persons  on  seventeen  occasions,  in  doses  sufficient  to  produce 
decided  toxic  [poisonous]  effects."  "To  test  the  effect  of  gelsemium  on  the 
circulation  I  made  thirty-three  series  of  observations  on  patients  in  whom  we 
induced  the  full  toxic  effects."  To  a  little  girl,  aged  nine,  who  was  suffering 
from  chorea,  Dr.  Ringer,  to  test  the  effect  on  temperature,  "gave  for  five  hours 
an  hourly  dose"  and  "produced  well-marked  constitutional  effects."  Among  the 
symptoms  which  Dr.  Ringer  produced  by  this  poison  upon  patients  who  doubtless 
supposed  that  they  were  receiving  some  remedy  for  their  ailments,  were 
pain,  giddiness,  dimness  of  sight,  weakness  in  the  legs  and  double  vision.  One 
patient  described  his  pain  "as  if  the  crown  of  the  head  was  being  lifted  off  in 
two  pieces" ;  "the  headache  and  pain  in  the  eyeballs  were  often  severe  and  were 
intensified  on  moving  the  eyes."  "One  patient,  on  both  occasions  on  which  I  ex- 
perimented on  him,  complained  spontaneously  of  a  numb  pain."0 

Poisoning  with  Muscarin.  This,  substance  is  "the  active  principle  of  poison- 
ous fungi."  It  "affects  especially  the  heart  and  intestinal  canal,"  producing 
among  other  symptoms,  "  'want  of  breath,  giddiness,  fainting,  prostration, 
and  stupor.'  "  In  order  "to  ascertain  whether  the  action  of  muscarin  on  man 
is  the  same  as  on  animals,"  Dr.  Ringer  and  his  associate  "made  thirteen  experi- 
ments on  four  men.  .  .  .  These  men,  it  is  well  to  state,  were  not  in  good 
health;  three  zvere  in  a  delicate  anaemic  state,  the  other  had  slight  fever  from 
some  obscure  cause.  .  .  ."  He  satisfied  himself  that  the  effects  were  the 
same  as  when  animals  were  used,  and  that  "in  our  experiments  on  man,  muscarin 

*.  Same,  p.  589. 
B.  Same,  p.  591. 
°.     Same,  pp.  497-5<H- 


produced  very  little  effect  on  the  pulse.     ...  In  nine  other  cases  he  applied, 

the  poison  to  the  eye,  causing  a  wide  dilation  of  the  pupil  which  continued  "about 
twenty-four  hours  or  a  little  longer."7 

A  rare  poison.  Dr.  Ringer's  scientific  enthusiasm  was  so  great  that  he 
could  not  forbear  making  experiments  upon  hospital  patients  with  a  poison  for 
which  there  appears  to  be  no  recognized  medical  use,  and  so  rare  that  he  was 
obliged  to  have  it  specially  manufactured  for  the  occasion.     He  says: 

"Our  experiments  led  us  to  conclude  that  ethyl-atropium  paralyzses  the  motor  nerves 
and  the  spinal  cord,  but  leaves  the  sensory  nerves  unaffected.  .  .  .  In  our  experiments  on- 
man  this  drug,  given  in  doses  sufficient  to  produce  marked  symptoms,  neither  strengthened 
nor  quickened  the  heart.  ...  In  man,  a  dose  of  one  grain  .  .  .  produces  decided  but 
transient  paralysis,  the  patient  being  unable  to  stand  or  walk,  and  the  head  dropping  rather 
towards  the  shoulder  or  chest,  and  the  upper  eyelids  drooping."* 

Dr.  Ringer  suggests  no  medical  employment  for  this  poison,  and  his  experi- 
ments upon  human  beings  were  apparently  for  the  gratification  of  his  curiosity. 
Does  the  reader  regard  such  experiments  upon  hospital  patients  as  justifiable? 

Poisoning  with  Nitrate  of  Sodium.  "To  eighteen  adults — fourteen  men  and  four  women 
—we  ordered  ten  grains  of  pure  nitrate  of  sodium  in  an  ounce  of  water,  and  of  these,  seven- 
teen declared  they  were  unable  to  take  it.  .  .  .  One  man,  a  burly,  strong  fellow,  suffering 
from  a  little  rheumatism  only,  said  that  after  taking  the  first  dose  he  'felt  giddy,'  as  if  he 
'would  go  off  insensible.'  His  lips,  face,  and  hands  turned  blue,  and  he  had  to  lie  down  an 
hour  and  a  half  before  he  dared  move.  His  heart  fluttered,  and  he  suffered  from  throbbing 
pains  in  the  head.  He  was  urged  to  try  another  dose,  but  declined  on  the  ground  that  he  had 
a  wife  and  family.     .     .     .     The  women  appear  to  have  suffered  more  than  the  men.     .     .     ."s 

When  a  report  of  these  experiments  with  poison  upon  hospital  patients  was 
first  printed  in  the  London  Lancet,  at  least  one  medical  journal  regarded  their 
publication  as  a  very  unwise  proceeding,  because  of  its  being  sure  to  cause  injury 
to  animal  vivisection.  The  editorial  columns  of  the  Medical  Times  and  Ga- 
zette (London)  of  Nov.  10,  1883  (Vol.  2,  pp.  548-550),  contain  these  comments 
upon  the  human  vivisections  just  described : 

"In  publishing,  and  indeed  in  instituting,  their  reckless  experiments  on  the  effect  of 
nitrite  of  sodium  on  the  human  subject,  Prof.  Ringer  and  Dr.  Murrell  have  made  a 
deplorably  false  move,  which  the  ever  watchful  opponents  of  vivisection  will  not  be  slow  to 
profit  by.  They  cannot  allege  that,  they  were  driven  to  the  experiments  by  the  Vivisection 
Act,  for  they  preface  their  account  of  their  clinical  observations  by  a  description  of  pathologi- 
cal observations  on  two  cats,  who  rapidly  succumbed  to  the  drug.  Nor  have  they  the 
excuse  that  the  effects  of  nitrite  of  sodium  on  the  human  subject  were  unknown,  for  Dr. 
Ramskill  and  Dr.  Ralfe  have  placed  on  record  six  cases  in  which  its  administration  was 
attended  by  the  most  serious  consequences — lividity  and  semi-collapse.  It  is  impossible  to 
read  the  paper  in  last  week's  Lancet  without  distress.  Of  the  eighteen  adults  to  whom  Drs. 
Ringer  and  Murreil  administered  the  drug  in  ten-grain  doses,  al!  but  one  avowed  they  would 
expect  to  drop  down  dead  if  they  ever  took  another  dose.  One  woman  fell  lu  the  ground,  and 
lay  with  throbbing  head  and  nausea  for  three  hours;  another  said  it  turned  her  lips  quite 
black  and  upset  her  so  that  she  was  afraid  she  would  never  get  over  it.  The  next  series  of 
experiments  was  with  five-grain  doses.  The  same  results  followed  in  ten  out  of  sixteen 
cases.  One  girl  vomited  for  two  hours,  and  thought  she  was  dying.  Even  in  three-grain 
doses  the  drug  caused  unpleasant  symptoms  in  fo.-.r  out  of  the  thirteen  patients  to  whom  it  was 
administered.     All  these  observations  are  recorded  with  an  innocent  naivete,  as  though  the 


Same,  pp.  489-494. 

Same,  p.  534. 

The  Lancet,  London,  Nov.  3,  1883,  p.  767. 


idea  that  any  one  could  possibly  take  exception  to  them  were  far  from  the  writer?'  minds. 
But  whatever  credit  may  be  given  to  Drs.  Ringer  and  Murrell  for  scientific  enthusiasm,  it  is 
impossible  to  acquit  them  of  grave  indiscretion.  There  will  be  a  howl  throughout  the  country 
if  it  comes  out  that  officers  of  a  public  charity  are  in  the  habit  of  trying  such  useless  and 
cruel  experiments  on  the  patients  committed  to  their  care,  and  the  whole  profession  will  be 
placed  in  a  false  position." 

One  can  hardly  regard  this  protest  as  a  very  noble  one.  To  speak  of  public 
indignation  as  "a  hozvl  throughout  the  country"  is  perhaps  significant  of  the  edi- 
tor's contempt  for  the  non-scientific  mind.  But  might  not  Dr.  Ringer  declare 
that  if  he  had  erred,  it  had  been  with  the  supporting  influence  of  Dr.  Keen,  Dr. 
Mitchell  and  Dr.  Morehouse,  the  three  distinguished  Americans  who,  long  before, 
had  laid  down  the  rule  that  in  the  study  of  poisons,  "in  order  to  appreciate  prop- 
erly any  toxic  agent,  we  must  follow  its  effects  through  a  wide  range  of  created 
existence  from  vegetable  to  man"? 

Experiments  with  Antimony  or  Tartar  Emetic.  "In  poisoning  by  this  substance  .  .  . 
the  patient  is  attacked  with  pain  in  the  stomach,  followed  by  incessant  retching,  prcecordial 
■cramps  and  burning  heat  .  .  .  severe  colic.  .  .  .  The  muscles  are  sometimes  rigid, 
but  generally  relaxed ;  the  skin  pale,  cool  and  clammy ;  the  pulse  feeble.  .  .  .  The  dose 
required  to  produce  such  symptoms  cannot  be  precisely  stated.  It  may  be  but  the  fraction 
■of  a  grain  which  occasions  them,  and  that  with  a  fatal  result."10 

"We  have  thus  shown,"  says  Dr.  Ringer,  "that  tartar-emetic  paralyzes  the 
central  nervous  system,  the  motor  nerves,  the  muscles,  and  destroys  sensation, 
and  therefore  we  are  led  to  infer  that  probably  tartar-emetic  is  a  protoplasmic 
poison,  destroying  function  in  all  nitrogenous  tissue."11 

Although  only  a  "fraction  of  a  grain"  may  prove  fatal,  yet,  to  determine  the 

■effect  of  the  poison  on  temperature,  Dr.  Ringer  made  this  experiment : 

"To  a  strong  young  man  I  gave  tartar-emetic  in  half-grain  doses  every  ten  minutes  for 
nearly  seven  hours,  inducing  great  nausea  and  vomiting,  with  profuse  perspiration."12 

To  this  "strong  young  man"  was  given  a  poisonous  substance  to  the  amount 
•of  nearly  tzuenty-one  grains,  although  a  fatal  result  may  be  produced  by  "the 
fraction  of  a  grain" !  Suppose  he  had  died  as  the  result  of  this  experiment,  and 
the  experimenter  had  been  indicted  by  the  grand  jury,  would  the  uncertainty 
•of  the  action  of  the  poison  have  been  an  available  defense? 

Its  effect  upon  the  pulse  is  significant.     A  medical  author  tells  us: 

"The  more  depressing  the  operation  of  the  medicine  .  .  .  the  more  frequent  and 
feeble  does  the  pulse  become.  In  the  case  of  a  boy  zvhose  brain  membranes  were  exposed, 
Dr.  Mary  Putnam  Jacobi  observed  that  in  two  and  a  half  hours  after  the  administration  of 
a  quarter  of  a  grain  of  tartar  emetic,  which  did  not  occasion  vomiting,  the  intracranial 
hlood-pressure  was  diminished  and  the  walls  of  the  arteries  relaxed.  This  peculiarity  was 
not  noticed  under  the  action  of  sedative  doses  of  quinine,  and  was  produced  only  by  nauseat- 
ing doses  of  tartar  emetic."13 

Poisoning  with  Alcohol..  .This  substance,  in  various  forms,  is  so  widely 
used,  that  for  purposes  of  experimentation  it  is  generally  necessary  to  admin- 
ister it  either  to  children  or  to  persons  wholly  unaccustomed  to  its  use.  Dr. 
Ringer  says: 


The  National  Dispensatory,  by  Stille,  Maisch  &  Caspari.  5th  Ed.,  p.  219;    (pub.  by 

Lea  Bros.  &  Co.,  Phila.  &  N.  Y.) 
Handbook  of  Therapeutics,  Ringer   (above  cited),  p.  2J2. 
Same,  p.  273. 

The  National  Dispensatory   (above  cited),  p.  219. 

9 


"As  the  result  of  a  great  many  observations  taken  in  conjunction  with  Dr.  Rickardsr 
every  quarter  of  an  hour  for  several  hours,  on  persons  of  all  ages,  we  found  that  alcohol,, 
brandy,  and  wine  diminish  the  body  temperature.  After  moderate  doses  the  fall  was  slight, 
.  .  .  but  after  poisonous  doses  the  depression  in  one  instance  reached  nearly  three 
degrees."11 

What  a  confession  this  is !  Even  upon  children  wholly  unaccustomed  to 
alcohol  in  any  form,  as  well  as  upon  confirmed  inebriates,  Dr.  Ringer  carried  on 
his  experiments : 

"In  a  boy  aged  ten,  who  had  never  in  his  life  before  taken  alcohol  in  any  form,  I  found 
through. a  large  number  of  observations  a  constant  and  decided  reduction  of  temperature. 
.  .  .  Dr.  Rickards  and  I  gave  to  an  habitual  drunkard,  making  him  'dead  drunk,'  twelve 
ounces  of  good  brandy  in  a  single  dose."15 

This  experiment  was  not  without  danger  to  life.  When  a  large  quantity 
of  strong  alcoholic  drink  is  taken  at  a  draught, 

"death  from  this  rapid  saturation  of  the  system  with  alcohol  is  by  no  means  rare.  Orfila 
[the  great  authority  on  poisons]  mentions  an  instance  in  which  a  man  died  immediately  from 
the  effects  of  a  large  dose  of  brandy.  .  .  .  Roscb  also  relates  the  cases  of  two  children 
in  which  quite  a  small  quantity  [of  gin]  proved  fatal."™ 

If  any  of  Dr.  Ringer's  patients  had  died  and  he  had  been  indicted,  his  own 
testimony  as  an  expert  would  have  been  fatal  to  him  on  his  trial. 

The  Philadelphia  Medical  Journal,  not  long  since,  reported  "some  work"" 
done  upon  human  beings  by  a  German  experimenter.  In  one  case  we  are  in- 
formed that  the 

"quantity  of  alcohol  was  sufficient  (with  this  subject,  who  zvas  entirely  unaccustomed  to  the 
use  of  alcohol)  to  produce  a  more  or  less  constant  condition  of  mild  intoxication  during 
the  first  few  days."17 

Of  another  subject,  the  vivisector  states  that  '.'after  the  second  dose  signs  of 
acute  alcoholism  and  a  condition  approaching  collapse  appeared."  It  seems  evi- 
dent that  in  this  case  the  experiment  was  carried  to  a  point  where  human  life 
was  in  danger. 

Poisoning  with  Digitalis.  The  New  York  Medical  Record  reports  a  Vienna 
scientist  who  experimented  upon  human  beings  and  animals  by  immersing  them 
in  various  poisonous  solutions.  "A  boy  of  fifteen  years  remained  six  hours  in  a 
sitz-bath  (6s°C.)  of  infusion  of  half  a  pound  of  digitalis  in  four  buckets  of 
water.  .  .  .  Pulse  fell  from  84  to  60,  gastric  and  cerebral  symptoms  occurred 
and  lasted  two  days."ls 

Poisoning  with  Conia.  This  is  the  alkaloid  principle  of  conium  or  hemlock,. 
the  poison  taken  by  Socrates,  its  most  illustrious  victim.  "No  poison,  except 
prussic  acid,  excels  conia  in  the  subtlety  and  rapidity  of  its  operation."1* 
The  action  of  this  poison  has  been  more  completely  illustrated  "by  SchrofrV 
whose  experiments  were  performed  upon  three  healthy  male  adults."  Among' 
•  symptoms  produced,  were : 

"intense  burning  in  the  mouth ;  .  .  .  the  tongue  was  benumbed  and  paralyzed  .  •  . 
giddiness ;     .     .     .     great     impairment     of     general     sensibility,    and     a     sort     of     discom- 

li.     Ringer's  Therapeutics   (above  cited),  p.  340. 

15.  Same,  p.  341. 

16.  Therapeutics  and  Materia  Medica,  by  Alfred  Stille,  M.  D.,  4th  ed'n.     Philadelphia, 
Henry  C.  Lea,  publisher.    Vol.  1,  p.  731. 

1T.     The  Phil.  Medical  Journal,  Vol.  VIII,  Nov.  23,  1901,  p.  888. 

1C.    The  Medical  Record,  New  York.    Vol.  VII,  p.  252. 

10.     Stille's  Therapeutics  and  Materia  Medica    (above  cited).     Vol.  II,  p.  334. 

10 


fort  which  lasted  during  the  following  day.  The  sight  was  confused,  the  pupils  dilated,  and 
surrounding  objects  seemed  to  swim;  the  hearing  was  dull;  .  .  .  the  arms  were  moved 
with  difficulty,  and  the  gait  was  staggering.  .  .  .  The  tips  of  the  fingers  and  the  hands 
were  moist,  cold,  and  bluish,  the  countenance  sunken  and  pale-"20 

Poisoning  with  East  Indian  Hemp.  Dr.  Lawrie,  physician  to  the  Lock 
Hospital  in  Glasgow,  Scotland,  experimented  with  the  poison  of  cannabis 
indica — or  East  Indian  hemp — upon,  some  twenty-six  unfortunate  patients  con- 
fided to  his  professional  care.  Some  of  the  symptoms  thus  produced  were  as 
follows : 

"In  many  [cases],  nausea  and  vomiting  were  produced;  in  several  there  were  convulsive 
paroxysms;  frequently  the  thirst  was  distressing;  the  pulse  was  rendered  frequent,  weak, 
and  intermittent ;  .  .  .  the  effects  of  the  drug  were  so  far  from  agreeable  that  'the  ma- 
jority of  those  who  took  it  once  only  did  so  a  second  time  on  compulsion/" 

Dr.  Stille  refers  to  "the  wretched  and  generally  ignorant  creatures  who 
formed  the  subjects  of  Dr.  Lawrie's  experiments"21 

These  experiments  were  made  in  Europe ;  but  Dr.  Stille  quotes  them  in  an 
American  work  without  expression  of  disapprobation. 

A  distressing  feature  of  many  of  these  experiments  is  the  fact  that  the  men 
and  women  upon  whom  they  are  performed  were  not  only  ignorant,  but 
under  constraint.  In  this  horrible  case  certain  patients  in  the  hospital  were  not 
merely  poisoned  once,  but  were  obliged,  "on  compulsion;'  to  undergo  the  con- 
vulsive paroxysms  and  all  the  other  agonizing  symptoms  a  second  time. 

"Experimenting  upon  Man"  Dr.  H.  C.  Wood,  Jr.,  distinguished  by  his 
vivisections  of  animals,  thus  refers  to  human  vivisection  in  connection  with  ni- 
trite of  amyl : 

"Fortunately  there  have  not  been  as  yet  any  cases  of  human  poisoning  by  the  drug,  and 
no  one  in  experimenting  upon  man,  that  I  know  of,  has  as  yet  carried  the  effect  far  enough 
to  produce  serious  spinal  symptoms.  .  .  .  Some  who  have  administered  the  remedy  to 
man  with  a  little  too  great  boldness,  have  been  sorely  frightened.     .     .     *>Jt 

"Pushed  even  to  a  fatal  dose."  Is  the  circulation  in  the  eye  affected  by 
various  poisons  when  pushed  to  a  fatal  dose?  Dr.  Sydney  Ringer  tells  us  as 
follows  : 

"Dr.  J.  H.  Arbuckle  (West  Riding  Lunatic  Asylum  Reports,  Vol.  V)  finds  that  the 
following  substances — Xicotia,  Atropia,  .  .  .  Aconitia,  Hydrate  of  Chloral,  Nitrate  of 
Amyl,  Pfussic  Acid,  Strychnia  .  .  .  —pushed  even  to  a  fatal  dose,  do  not  in  any  degree 
affect  the  circulation  at  the  fundus  of  the  eye.  His  observations  were  made  on  rabbits,  and 
the  results  they  obtained  were,  with  respect  to  some  of  these  agents,  contained  by  experi- 
ments on  man."23 

We  do  not  know  what  this  language  means  unless  it  be  that  these  poisons 
"pushed  even  to  a  fatal  dose"'  produced  phenomena  that  were  "confirmed  by  ex- 
periments" upon  human  beings.  It  is  certain  that  human  vivisectors  have  given 
certain  poisons  up  to  a  point  just  short  of  collapse.  Dr.  Stille  refers  to  numerous 
experiments  with  antimony ;  some  by  Mayerhoffer,  ''who  seems  to  have  conducted 

m.     Stille's  Therapeutics  and  Materia  Medica   (above  cited),  Vol.  II,  p.  339. 
21.     Same,  Vol.  I,  p.  962. 
".     The  American  Journal  of  the  Medical  Sciences   (before  cited).  Vol.  88   (N.  S.,  62), 

No.  CXXIV  (New  Series),  pp.  359  and  360. 
~3.     Ringer's  Therapeutics    (above  cited),  p.  368. 

11 


his  experiments  carefully," — producing  "tearing,  cutting,  and  griping  pains"  etc. ; 
some  by  Ackermann,  whose  "observations  were  made  on  healthy  persons"  and  who 
noticed  that  "the  rate  of  the  pulse  increases  with  the  development  of  the  phenom- 
ena of  collapse."241 

"On  Human  Beings  Before  Your  Eyes."  It  sometimes  happens  that  scien- 
tific statements  concerning  the  effects  of  a  poisonous  drug  may  be  illustrated 
vividly  by  experiments  made  before  the  eyes  of  the  student.  In  course  of  a 
lecture  on  atropine,  delivered  by  a  distinguished  lady-physician,  before  the  stu- 
dents of  the  Woman's  College  of  the  New  York  Infirmary,  it  would  seem  that 
three  persons — one  a  "rather  robust  woman  in  good  health" — were  thus  utilized. 
In  summing  up  what  was  observed,  the  lady-lecturer  is  reported  thus : 

"In  the  three  cases  where  we  tested  the  action  of  atropine  on  human  beings  before  your 
eyes,  we  observed  a  fall  of  the  pulse  within  ten  minutes.  ...  In  the  second  case  the 
subject  was  a  rather  robust  woman  in  good  health.  The  pulse  being  at  So,  one-fiftieth  gr. 
sulph.  atrop.  was  given  by  subcutaneous  injection.  In  seven  minutes  the  pulse  had  fallen 
to  68.  In  fifteen  minutes  came  a  dryness  of  the  throat  and  slight  giddiness.  In  twenty  min- 
utes the  pulse  had  risen  to  104.  .  .  .  This  initial  fall  of  the  pulse  ...  is  too  trans- 
itory  to    be  of   any   value   therapeutically,    but    physiologically    it   is   extremely   interesting. 

;>25 

This  experimenter  is,  to-day,  one  of  the  most  distinguished  women  in  the 
medical  profession.  She. is  a  strong  advocate  of  animal  vivisection,  unrestricted 
by  any  law.  To  her  doubtless  belongs  the  distinction  of  being  the  first  woman 
in  America  to  have  under  her  control  a  laboratory  for  the  vivisection  of  animals. 

"A  very  healthy  Irish  boy."  Under  the  title:  "Sphygmographic  Experi- 
ments upon  a  Human  Brain,  Exposed  by  an  Opening  in  the  Cranium,"  Dr. 
Mary  Putnam- Jacobi  of  New  York  has  described  a  series  of  experiments  made 
upon  "Josie  Nolan,  aged  ten,"  who,  some  eighteen  months  previously,  had  sus- 
tained a  fracture  of  the  skull.  Dr.  Putnam-Jacobi  tells  us  that  "the  case  offered 
a  unique  opportunity  for  the  study  of  conditions  affecting  inter-cranial  pressure" ; 
and  the  experiments,  apparently,  consisted  in  the  administration  of  various  pow- 
erful drugs,  and  in  noting,  by  means  of  the  sphygmograph.  their  effect  upon  the 
circulation  of  blood  in  the  brain.  Among  the  substances  used  in  these  most 
singular  experiments  upon  "a  very  healthy  Irish  boy,"  were  twenty  grains  of 
quinia,  causing  apparently  a  "rapid  and  complete  collapse  of  cerebral  arteries" ; 
thite  drachms  of  brandy;  five  drops  of  tincture  of  belladonna,  three  times  a  day 
for  four  days,  and  five  drops  every  three  hours  on  the  fifth  day ;  twenty  grains 
of  bromide  of  potassium;  one  sixty-fourth  of  a  grain  of  atropia  injected 
under  the  skin,  etc.  Whether  anything  of  value  was  learned  by  the  experiments 
we  are  not  told.  Dr.  Putnam-Jacobi  adds :  "To  what  extent  the  conclusions, 
drawn  from  these  observations,  are  in  accordance  with  existing  theories,  may  be 
considered  on  another  occasion.  On  this,  we  content  ourselves  with  registering 
the  facts."  This  is  the  true  scientific  spirit.  Whether  the  probable  escape  of 
this  "very  healthy  Irish  boy"  from  any  serious  consequences  of  the  experiments 
justified  these  investigations  upon  a  child  is  a  question  upon  which  there  is  per- 
haps room  for  difference  of  opinion.26     It  is  of  interest  to  note  that  Dr.  Putnam- 

2\     Stille's  Therapeutics  and  Materia  Medica   (above  cited),  Vol.  II,  pp.  424-426. 
25.     The  Medical  Record,  New  York  (ed.  by  Dr.  Geo.  F.  Shrady),  Vol.  8,  pp.  249-250. 
2r>.     The  Am.  Journal  of  the  Medical  Sciences,  Vol.    102    (N.   S.,  76),   No.  CLI    (New 
Series),  pp.  103-112. 

12 


Jacobi  is  most  vehemently  opposed  to  any  governmental  supervision  or  regulation 
of  the  vivisectors  of  animals.  She  says :  "We  have  repudiated  the  right  of  the 
church  to  control  the  procedures  and  conclusions  of  science.  Why  should  we 
now  make  over  this  right  to  men  immersed  in  business  and  politics?  Are  they 
any  more  fitted  than  priests f"27  To  this  scornful  inquiry,  we  oppose  another 
for  the  consideration  of  thoughtful  men.  Should  not  the  State  have  the  right  to 
forbid  even  the  most  scientific  of  its  physiologists  to  experiment  thus  upon  a 
healthy  lad  without  supervision  or  control  ?  Are  experts  in  science  also  experts  in 
morals  ? 

American  Soldiers  as  Material  for  Experiments.  Some  years  since  the 
scientific  world  was  informed  that  certain  experiments  had  been  made  upon 
American  soldiers  at  the  United  States  Army  Hospital  by  American  physicians. 
The  object  of  their  investigations  was  to  study  the  action  upon  human  beings 
of  two  poisonous  substances — atropia  and  morphia.  Just  so  far  as  the  experi- 
ments were  made  upon  suffering  men,  in  the  hope  of  giving  relief  from  pain, 
and  at  the  same  time  contributing  to  medical  knowledge,  there  can  be  nothing  to 
criticize  in  any  way.  There  is  reason,  however,  to  believe  that,  moved  by  the 
zeal  which  science  inspires,  in  some  cases  these  experimenters  went  far  beyond 
this.  For  example,  in  the  report  of  their  investigations  appear  the  following  state- 
ments : 

"We  finally  entered  upon  a  deliberate  course  of  experiments  with  the  intention  of  ascer- 
taining in  what  respect  .  .  .  the  two  drugs  in  question  were  antagonistic. 
The  experiments  which  we  shall  now  relate  xvere  most  of  them  made  upon  soldiers  who  were 
suffering  from  painful  neuralgic  diseases,  or  from  some  cause  entailing  pain.  In  some  cases, 
however,  convalescent  men  were  the  subjects  of  our  observations,  but  in  no  instance  were 
they  allowed  to  know  what  agents  we  used,  or  what  effects  were  expected."28 

.  .  .  "The  subjects  of  our  experiments  were  men  free  from  fever.  Some  were  suffering 
from  neuralgia,  and  some  were  men  in  very  fair  health,  suspected  of  malingering.  .  .  . 
The  patient  was  kept  recumbent  for  some  time  before  and  during  the  observation."2" 

In  other  words,  United  States  soldiers,  some  of  whom  were  "in  very  fair 
health,"  some  slowly  recovering  from  wounds  or  disease,  were  used  as  research 
material  for  experiments  with  powerful  drugs,  and  were  not  permitted  to  know 
what  was  being  done ! 

The  object  of  these  experiments  was  the  study  of  two  drugs,  morphia  and 
atropia,  given  separately  or  in  combination.  One  is  impressed  by  the  abundance 
of  the  human  material  at  the  disposal  of  these  investigators ;  they  make  not 
merely  one  or  two  experiments,  but  whole  "series  of  experiments" : 

"In  the  next  series  of  experiments  we  endeavored  to  learn  whether,  when  full  doses 
of  morphia  and  atropia  were  injected  together,  the  pulse  zvould  be  modified.  .  .  .  These 
observations  were  checked  by  two  other  sets  of  experiments.  In  one  we  gave  a  full  dose 
of  morphia  subcutaneously,  and  when  the  pupils  were  well  contracted,  or  the  cerebral  in- 
fluence clearly  marked,  the  atropia  was  employed.  In  the  other  we  gave  the  atropia  first, 
and  when  it  began  to  show  an  effect  on  the  pulse  we  injected  a  full  dose  of  morphia."30 

Very,  singular  experiments,  these,  to  be  made  by  American  surgeons  upon 
American  soldiers ! 

2T.     Vivisection :     Hearing  before  the   Senate   Committee  on  the  District   of   Columbia, 

February  21,  1900;  Washington:  Government  Printing  Office;  p.  59.   . 
2S.     Am.  Jour.  Med.   Sciences,   New   Series,  Vol.  50,   No.   XCIX    (New   Series),  pp.  69 

and  70. 
~\     Same,  p.  71. 
30.     Same,  pp.  72  and  73. 

13 


And  still  other  experiments  upon  the  eye  and  brain : 

"Effect  on  the  Eye.  It  is  needless  to  show  anew  that  atropia  dilates  and  morphia  con- 
tracts the  pupillary  aperture.  Our  observations  consisted  in  using  injections  of  both  drugs- 
in  succession  or  together  so  as  to  note  how  they  influenced  the  iris.  Their  antagonism  was 
here  very  plain.  ...  It  was  noticeable  that  the  accommodation  often  remained  para- 
lyzed for  an  hour  6r  more  after  the  pupils  had  been  relieved  from  the  effects  of  the 
atropia. 

It  was  of  course  found  difficult  to  regulate  the  doses  so  that  they  should  always  neu- 
tralize one  another  precisely,  even  for  a  brief  period,  and  hence  it  was  common  to  see  .  .  . 
a  condition  of  complete  antagonism  prevailing  for  a  time  only,  when  one  or  other  medi- 
cine would  dominate  the  system.     . 

\The  effects  of  the  two  drugs  upon  the  cerebral  functions  were  studied  separately,  with 
care,  and  then  in  a  second  series  of  observations  they  were  used  together  or  in  succession."31 

Here,  then,  is  a  typical  instance  of  wholesale  experimentation  upon  human 
beings.  How  these  experiments  will  be  palliated  and  excused  by  the  dis- 
tinguished men  who  performed  them,  it  is  easy  to  foretell.  We  shall  un- 
doubtedly be  told  that  all  this  happened  some  years  ago ;  that  the  American 
soldiers,  thus  used  as  material,  suffered  no  permanent  injury  from  the  experi- 
ments to  which  they  were  subjected;  that  the  investigators  were  purely  disin- 
terested ;  that  the  scientific  questions  involved  were  of  great  interest,  and  that 
results  might  possibly  have  been'  obtained  which  would  have  proven  of  great 
service  to  medical  science.  But  even  if  we  grant  all  this,  and  accord  to  these 
gentlemen  the  purest  of  personal  motives,  can  we  say  that,  in  such  defense,  they 
touch  the  chief  point  at  issue  in  all  this  matter  of  human  vivisection  ?  Here  were 
a  number  of  living  human  beings,  who  for  a  brief  period,  on  account  of  mis- 
fortune, were  temporarily  in  their  power.  What  moral  right  had  these  medical 
gentlemen  thus  to  experiment  upon  the  eye,  the  pulse,  the  brain  of  a  single  soldier 
of  this  Republic,  who  was  purposely  not  "allowed  to  know  what  agents"  were 
used?  That  is  the  only  question  which  is  here  raised.  Even  granting  the  utility, 
who  confers  upon  anyone  the  moral  right  to  test  poisons  on  his  fellow-men  f 
Does  any  possible  utility  to  science  justify  it?  Are  all  these  experiments  made  by 
Ringer,  by  Arbuckle,  by  Lawrie  and  a  host  of  others  to  be  condoned  and  com- 
mended because  the  motive  was  the  advancement  of  science?  Above  all 
questions  of  profit  or  expediency  or  scientific  gain,  are  there  not  certain  stand- 
ards of  right  and  wrong  by  which  such  experiments  as  these  should  be  un- 
hesitatingly condemned  ? 

In  a  pamphlet  concerning  human  vivisection,  published  a  few  years  since 
by  the  American  Humane  Association,  attention  was  directed  to  some  scientific 
experiments  upon  dying  children  made  in  a  Boston  Hospital,  and  to  similar 
experiments  upon  lunatics  in  a  Baltimore  Insane  Asylum.  Replying  apparently 
to  some  newspaper  comments  on  these  investigations,  there  appeared  in  the  col- 
umns of  the  Baltimore  Sun,  and  later,  in  the  "Journal  of  the  American  Medical 
Association,"  a  letter  bearing  the  signature  of  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen,  a  Philadelphia 
surgeon.    Therein  he  refers  to 

"a  pamphlet  published  by  the  mis-called  'American  Humane  Society,'  dealing  .  .  .  with 
all  the  instances  which  their  drag-net  had  been  able  to  cull  from  the  medical  literature  of  the 
world.     Instead  of  human  vivisection  being  practiced  'to  a  considerable  extent,'  that  pamph- 

31.     Same,  p.  73. 

14 


let  could  give  only  two   instances  of  anything  resembling  experiments  on  human  beings  in 
this  country — one  in  Massachusetts  and  one  in  Maryland."32 

Coming  from  Dr.  Keen,  this  seems  to  us  a  very  singular  letter.  We  think 
the  average  reader  would  almost  certainly  imagine  that  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen  him- 
self was  aware  of  but  tzvo  instances  of  anything  like  human  vivisection  in  the 
medical  annals  of  our  country.  But  the  "medical  literature  of  the  world"  is  vastly 
richer  in  details  of  these  most  deplorable  experiments  than  is  suggested  by  this 
letter ;  and  we  are  sure  that  upon  reflection  a  scholar  of  his  distinction  would  be 
ready  to  acknowledge  it.  We  are  quite  confident,  for  instance,  that  Dr.  Keen  now 
will  be  able  to  recollect  the  foregoing  "series  of  experiments,"  made  upon  Ameri- 
can soldiers  in  the  United  States  Army  Hospital.  The  utility  of  these  human 
vivisections  doubtless  he  will  still  maintain ;  but  may  we  not  hope  he  would  also 
add  that  no  conceivable  utility  to  science  can  justify  such  infringement  upon 
human  rights  ?  Certainly  every  one  interested  in  the  promulgation  of  scientific 
truth  must  deeply  regret  that  when  Dr.  Keen  thus  apparently  suggested  the  ex- 
treme infrequency  of  "anything  resembling  experiments  on  human  beings  in  this 
country;"  he  should  have  so  completely  forgotten  the  report  published  in  the 
American  Journal  of  the  Medical  Sciences,  No.  xcix,  (New  Series),  p.  6j,  "On 
the  Antagonism  of  Atropia  and  Morphia,  Founded  upon  Observations  and  Ex- 
periments made  at  the  U.  S.  A.  Hospital  [etc.].  By  S.  Weir  Mitchell,  M.  D., 
William  W.  Keen,  M.  D.,  and  George  R.  Morehouse,  M.  D." 

In  another  respect,  we  believe  this  communication  of  Dr.  Keen  to  have  been 
a  mistake.  Could  anybody  dream  that  the  "two  instances"  thus  referred  to  really 
covered  no  less  than  eight  experiments  upon  lunatics,  made  in  one  charitable 
institution,  and  forty-five  experiments  upon  sick  and  dying  children,  performed 
in  a  hospital  specially  consecrated  to' their  care?  Because  the  object  of  investiga- 
tion is  identical,  is  it  but  one  experiment — no  matter  how  many  children  are  used? 
We  are  quite  certain  that  the  public  will  not  accept  Dr.  Keen's  singular  method 
of  enumeration,  however  scientific  it  mav  seem  to  him. 


EXPERIMENTS  ON   CHILDREN. 

At  a  meeting  of  the  New  York  Academy  of  Medicine,  held  Dec.  I,  1887,  a 
Dr.  J.  W.  Stickler,  of  Orange,  New  Jersey,  presented  a  paper  upon  "Foot-and- 
Mouth  Disease  as  It  Affects  Man  and  Animals/'  etc.33  He  had  conceived  the 
theory  that  this  epidemic  disorder,  so  fatal  to  certain  animals,  had  a  particular 
relation  to  scarlet  fever ;  and  that  if  human  beings  were  inoculated  with  the 
virus  of  this  animal  disease,  it  might  render  them  immune  to  the  infection  of 
scarlatina.  To  test  the  theory- — one,  by  the  way,  utterly  discredited  and  for- 
gotten at  the  present  time — Dr.  Stickler  made  a  number  of  "experiments"  of  the 
most  dangerous  kind,  upon  children  entrusted  to  his  professional  care.  The 
New  York  Medical  Record  of  Dec.  10,  1887,  prints,  as  its  leading  article,  this 
paper  in  full. 

The  first  victim  of  this  human  vivisector  was  a  little  boy,  about  eight  years 
of  age,  who  had  never  had  scarlet  fever.     First,  the  lad  was  inoculated  with 

32.     Letter  of  Dr.  W.  W.  Keen  to  Baltimore  Sun,  and    reprinted  in  Journal  of  American 
Medical  Association,  June  2,  1900,  Vol.  34,  p.  1432. 
33.     Boston  Medical  and  Surgical  Journal,  Dec.  22,  1887,  pp.  607-609. 

15 


the  virus  of  foot-and-mouth  disease,  an  ailment  very  fatal  to  certain  domestic 
animals.  After  his  recovery  from  this,  he  was  deliberately  exposed  to  the 
infection  of  scarlet  fever,  one  of  the  most  terrible  of  all  diseases  to  which  children 
are  liable.     The  experimenter  shall  tell  the  story  in  his  own  words : 

"He  was  then  taken  to  a  house  in  which  there  was  a  boy  sick  with  scarlet  fever.  .  .  . 
His  parents  being  poor,  the  pillow  upon  which  the  patient  lay  had  not  been  exchanged 
.  .  .  since  the  beginning  of  the  sickness.  This  pillow  was  placed  over  the  face  of  the 
boy  who  had  been  inoculated,  and  held  there  some  time.  He  was  then  made  to  inhale  the 
breath  of  the  patient."31 

Now,  what  do  American  fathers  and  mothers  think  of  such  experiments, 
if  secretly  made  upon  their  own  children?  Because  these  parents  were  ignorant 
and  "poor,"  is  the  experiment  to  be  condoned?  Is  it  any  excuse  to  tell  us  that, 
after  all,  the  lad  did  not  suffer  from  scarlet  fever,  although  he  was  forced  by 
strong  arms  to  run  the  risk  of  infection?  If  this  child  had  taken  the  disease 
and  had  died  from  it,  does  anyone  think  that  the  details  of  that  scientific  murder 
would  ever  have  come  to  light? 

A  second  victim  of  this  experimenter  upon  the  bodies  of  human  beings 
was  a  little  girl,  only  four  years  old.  The  vivisector  tells  us  that  he  inoculated 
her  in  the  arm — 

"with  a  small  quantity  of  the  foot-and-mouth  virus.  On  March  13th  her  temperature  rose  to 
103  degrees  F.  Her  mouth  was  sore,  .  .  .  she  complained  of  a  pricking  sensation  in 
her  throat.  She  had  slight  headache.  .  .  .  The  same  plan  of  exposure  was  adopted  as 
in  the  first  case.     .     .     .":''° 

She,  too,  escaped  contracting  scarlet  fever,  and  a  third  victim  to  science 
had  a  like  good  fortune.  That  they  did  not  become  infected  with  the  dread 
disease  and  die,  certainly  was  not  due  to  any  lack  of  zeal  on  the  part  of  this 
vivisector  of  children. 

These  were  not  the  only  experiments  made  by  Dr.  Stickler ;  he  had  been 
making  similar  experiments  for  years.     Thus  he  says : 

"In  the  early  part  of  the  year  1883  I  inoculated  twelve  persons  with  virus  obtained 
from  horses.  .  .  .  These  twelve  persons  were  also  inoculated  with  tinman  scarlatinal 
blood  after  they  had  been  inoculated  with  equine  virus.  During  the  summer  of  the  same 
year  /  inoculated  thirteen  children,  all  of  whom  had  been,  and  were  at  the  time  .of  inocula- 
tion, exposed  to  the  influence  of  air  contaminated  by  the  breath  and  exhalations  of  scar- 
latinal patients.  .  .  .  During  the  last  year  I  have  inoculated  two  children  with  the 
contents  of  a  vesicle  produced  in  the  abdomen  of  a  calf  by  inoculation  zvith  virus  derived 
from  a  patient  zvho  had  scarlet  fcver."za 

About  these  horrible  facts,  therefore,  there  can  be  no  dispute,  for  they  rest 
on  the  confession  of  the  experimenter.  A  reputable  member  of  the  medical 
profession  was  able  to  induce  parents — by  what  representations  or  promises  we 
know  not — to  give  over  their  children  as  the  subjects  of  scientific  experiments 
that  might  mave  terminated  in  death.  Little  ones,  free  from  any  serious  ail- 
ment, were  deliberately  inoculated  with  the  virus  of  a  horrible  disorder,  peculiar 
to  certain  domestic  animals.  After  recovery  from  its  effects,  they  were  sub- 
jected to  still  another  phase  of  human  vivisection  by  being  carefully  exposed — 


New  York  Medical  Record.  Dec.  10,  1887,  p.  728. 
New  York  Medical  Record,  Dec.  10,  1887,  p.  728. 
New  York  Medical  Record,  Dec.  10,  1887,  pp.  731  and  732. 

16 


or  forced  to  expose  themselves — to  the  infection  of  one  of  the  worst  and  most 
fatal  of  all  the  diseases  that  afflict  and  endanger  the  life  of  a  child.  We  are  told 
that  none  of  the  victims  of  these  experiments  contracted  the  disorder.  May  it 
not  be  possible  that  all  the  facts  have  not  been  disclosed? 

The  paper  describing  these  experiments  upon  little  children  was  read  be- 
fore a  regular  meeting  of  the  New  York  Academy  of  Medicine,  Dec.  i,  1887, 
and  was  received  with  expressions  of  great  interest.  In  the  discussion  that 
followed,  some  of  the  leading  physicians  of  Xew  York  City  took  part.  Dr. 
Andrew  H.  Smith  inquired  whether  it  was  an  easy  matter  to  procure  virus  so 
lthat  the  supply  could  be  kept  up  in  case  the  method  came  into  general  requisi- 
tion. Dr.  J.  Lewis  Smith  expressed  doubts  of  the  expediency  of  such  investi- 
gations and  pointed  out  that  "by  inoculating  with  the  bovine  scarlatinous  virus, 
we  might  produce  severe  and  fatal  epidemics." 

Professor  Law,  the  well-known  veterinarian  of  Cornell  University,  speak- 
ing as  a  scientist,  expressed  his  scepticism  regarding  the  method  of  experimenta- 
tion, and  pointed  out  that  90,000  deaths  from  scarlatina  had  occurred  in  Great 
Britain  during  the  preceeding  five  years.  He  strongly  urged  that  investigations 
of  this  kind  "should  be  carried  on  on  the  other  side  of  the  Atlantic,  as  it  would 
be  a  very  serious  matter  if  that  affection  should  be  introduced  in  this  way  among 
American  cattle,  and  he  had  no  doubt  that  there  would  be  a  general  outcry  among 
the  cattlemen  if  it  were  known  that  experiments  were  being  made  with  the  virus 
of  the  disease  in  this  country."  No  suggestion  was  made  of  any  "out- 
cry" among  the  fathers  and  mothers  of  American  children  liable  to  infection-ex- 
periments of  this  kind;  it  was  the  American  cattlemen  whose  protests  were 
feared.  Not  a  word  of  criticism  made  upon  these  experiments  from  the  stand- 
point of  their  immorality  appears  in  the  report. 

A  full  summary  of  these  child-vivisections  was  printed  by  The  Jourxal 
of  The  American  Medical  Association37  of  Chicago ;  The  Medical  News38 
of  Philadelphia,  the  Boston  Medical  and  Surgical  Journal39,  and  both  The 
New  York  Medical  Journal40  and  the  Medical  Record41  of  New  York. 
With  words  of  remonstrance  or  condemnation?     Not  one. 

Even  yet,  we  are  not  without  hope  for  better  things.  We  heartily  wish  that 
the  day  may  come  when,  in  utterances  that  can  not  be  misunderstood,  the  medical 
press  of  this  country  shall  expend  its  vigor  of  denunciation,  not  upon  those  who 
bring  infamy  to  the  light  of  day,  but  upon  the  wretched  experimenters  upon 
human  victims,  whose  deeds  bring  scandal  upon  science  and  disgrace  upon  the 
practice  of  medicine.  No  doubt  it  will  require  some  degree  of  moral  courage  for 
the  conductors  of  an  American  periodical  to  take  this  stand;  probably  it  will 
alienate  the  support  of  a  few  well-known  vivisectors.  But  any  such  loss,  we  are 
sure,  will  be  more  than  compensated  by  an  enhanced  self-respect  and  an  increased 
public  confidence  and  esteem. 


37.  Dec.  24,  1887,  pp.  827-829. 

38.  Dec.  10,  1887,  pp.  688-690. 

39.  Dec.  22,  1887,  pp.  607-609. 

40.  Jan.  14,  1888,  pp.  49  and  50. 

41.  Dec.  10,  1887,  pp.  745-746. 


THE  VIVISECTION  OF  HOSPITAL  PATIENTS. 

The  British  Medical  Journal  of  July  7,  1900,  page  60,  says: 

"Gross  abuses  in  any  profession  should  not  be  hushed  up,  but  should  rather  be  made 
public  as  freely  as  possible,  so  as  to  rouse  public  opinion  against  them  and  thus  render  their 
repetition  or  spread  impossible.  And  therefore  we  have  reason  to  thank  the  Social-Democrat 
newspaper  Vorwarts  for  dragging  into  light  the  'experiments'  made  by  Dr.  Stubell  [Strubell] 
(first  assistant  in  Professor  Stinzing's  clinic  at  Jena)  on  patients  suffering  from  diabetes 
insipidus,  and  published  by  him  in  the  Archiv  fur  klinische  Medizin  [Deuisches  Archiv  fur 
Klinische  Medicin,  Dec.  22,  1898]. (Dr.  Stubell  [Strubell]  there  relates  how  he  kept 
one  of  his  patients  in  an  attic  with  barred  windows,  the  door  of  which  he  locked, 
putting  the  key  in  his  pocket;  how  the  patient,  who  was  allowed  only  a  small  amount  of 
liquid,  in  the  torturing  thirst  which  is  a  symptom  of  the  disease,  drank  his  washing  water, 
so  that  he  was  then  no  longer  allowed  to  wash  himself ;  how  one  night,  in  his  agony, 
.  .  .  ;  how  another  night  he  wrenched  off  one  of  his  window  bars,  climbed  over  the 
roof  to  another  small  window,  through  which  he  crept,  thus  finding  his  way  to  a  water-tap, 
where  he  was  captured  and  brought  back  to  his  prison.  Dr.  Stubell  [Strubell]  calmly  states 
that  his  patient  must  have  'endured  frightful  tortures'  one  night,  and  gives  the  following  ac- 
count of  his  condition  in  the  morning :  'The  patient  was  quite  collapsed,  his  lace  seemed  dried 
up,  eyes  and  cheeks  deeply  sunken,  pulse  almost  imperceptible,  a  great  deal  of  pain,  the 
joints  stiff-'  The  whole  medical  profession  must  reprobate  cruelties  such  as  these  perpetrated 
in  the  name  of  science.") 

What  an  inspiration  toward  righteousness  are  words  like  these  coming  from 
such  a  source !  How  almost  infinite  is  the  contrast  between  this  honest  out- 
spoken condemnation  of  "cruelties,"  and  the  paltering  apologies  and  excuses 
which  seem  to  find  principal  expression  on  this  side  of  the  ocean. 

One  of  the  most  horrible  cases  of  human  vivisection  in  this  country,  and 
one,  too,  which  was  terminated  by  the  death  of  the  victim,  occurred  in  one  of  the 
hospitals  of  Cincinnati,  Ohio. 

The  experiments  were  performed  by  a  physician  who,  for  many  years,  was 
connected  with  one  of  the  leading  medical  schools  of  Philadelphia ;  a  man  who  is 
widely  known  throughout  the  United  States.  Under  the  significant  title :  "Ex- 
perimental Investigations  into  the  Functions  of  the  Human  Brain,"  the  experi- 
menter published  his  story  to  the  world,  apparently  assured  that  its  scientific  in- 
terest would  outweigh  whatever  objections  from  a  moral  standpoint  might  be 
urged.  The  case  is  so  excellent  an  illustration  of  scientific  degeneracy  that  it 
deserves  to  be  told  somewhat  in  detail. 

To  an  institution  bearing  the  comforting  name  of  the  Good  Samaritan 
Hospital  there  came  one  day  a  poor  woman  by  the  name  of  Mary  Rafferty. 
A  domestic  servant  by  occupation,  strong  neither  in  mind  nor  body,  she 
had  sustained  an  accident  which  made  her  good  "material"  for  a  dangerous  ex- 
periment. When  a  child,  she  had  fallen  into  the  fire  and  severely  burned  her 
scalp ;  and  a  few  months  before,  in  the  scar-tissue,  an  eroding  ulcer  had  ap- 
peared which  gradually  had  laid  bare  the  brain-substance.  Apparently  any  cure 
of  her  trouble  was  seen  at  once  to  be  hopeless ;  but  she  presented  a  chance  for 
making  scientific  experiments  of  a  kind  such  as  had  hitherto  been  made  only  upon 
dumb  animals.  We  are  twice  told  by  the  experimenter  that  she  was  "rather  feeble- 
minded," and  we  may  thus  judge  the  value  of  her  "consent"  to  experimentation 

18 


— if,  indeed,  her  consent  was  ever  asked.  She  did  not  complain  of  headache  or 
vertigo ;  she  was  "cheerful  in  manner,"  and  smiled  "easily  and  frequently,"  with 
child-like  confidence  and  perfect  faith  in  the  goodness  of  those  about  her. 

"It  is  obvious,"  says  the  experimenter  at  the  outset,  "that  it  is  exceedingly 
desirable  to  ascertain  how  far  the  results  of  experiment  on  the  brain  of  animals 
may  be  employed  to  elucidate  the  functions  of  the  human  brain."  He  com- 
menced his  vivisections,  therefore,  upon  Mary  Rafferty  by  inserting  into  the  sub- 
stance of  the  brain,  thus  exposed  by  disease,  insulated  needle  electrodes  of 
various  lengths,  and  connecting  them  with  a  battery.  Exactly  what  would  be  the 
result,  nobody  knew ;  but  "it  was  believed  that  diffusion  of  the  current  could 
"be  as  restricted  as  in  the  experiments  of  Fritsch  and  Hitzig  and  Ferrier,"  made 
upon  animals.  The  first  two  experiments  were  cautiously  made  and  evoked  the 
usual  phenomena ;  "the  arm  was  thrown  cut,  the  fingers  extended,  and  the  leg  was 
projected  forward,"  but  no  pain  was  felt  "in  the  brain-substance  proper." 
Gathering  courage,  the  experimenter  went  a  little  farther.  Peculiar  sensations 
hegan  to  be  felt  by  the  victim.     Let  the  vivisector  tell  the  story : 

/  "The  needle  was  now  withdrawn  from  the  left  lobe  and  passed  in  the  same  way  into  the 
[brain]  substance  of  the  right.  .  .  .  When  the  needle  entered  the  brain-substance,  she 
complained  of  acute  pain  in  the  neck.  In  order  to  develop  more  decided  reactions,  the 
strength  of  the  current  was  increased  by  drawing  out  the  wooden  cylinder  one  inch.  When 
communication  was  made  with  the  needles,  her  countenance  exhibited  great  distress,  and  she 
began  to  cry.  Very  soon  the  left  hand  was  extended  as  if  in  the  act  of  taking  hold  of  some 
object  in  front  of  her;  the  arm  presently  was  agitated  with  clonic  spasms;  her  eyes  became 
•fixed,  with  pupils  widely  dilated ;  lips  were  blue,  and  she  frothed  at  the  mouth ;  her  breathing 
became  stertorous ;  she  lost  consciousness,  and  was  violently  convulsed  on  the  left  side.  The 
convulsion  lasted  five  minutes,  and  was  succeeded  by  coma.  She  returned  to  consciousness 
in  twenty  minutes  from  the  beginning  of  the  attack./  .     .     ."^ 

What  had  happened  ?  Simply  this :  the  distinguished  scientist  had  caused  in 
.a  human  being  precisely  the  same  "violent  epileptiform  convulsion"  which 
Fritsch  and  Hitzig  and  Ferrier  had  produced  in  the  lower  animals,  and  by  the 
same  method  of  experimentation.  Dr.  Ferrier  himself,  in  some  observations 
upon  these  human  vivisections,  referred  to  the  "epileptiform  convulsions"  as  a 
complete  parallel  to  his  own  results  upon  lower  animals. 

Perhaps  some  unscientific  person  may  feel  that  the  experimenting  should 
have  ceased  at  this  point,  and  that  the  poor  girl  should  have  been  allowed 
to  go  home  and  die  in  peace.  But  is  this  other  than  mere  sentiment?  The 
president  of  Harvard  University  once  declared  that  "to  interfere  with  or  retard 
the  progress  of  medical  discovery  is  an  inhuman  thing" ;  yet  we  cannot  believe 
lie  would  have  approved  the  continuance  of  these  vivisections,  even  though 
in  accord  with  that  sentiment.  Again,  this  experiment  upon  the  poor  creature's 
brain  was  performed ;  the  needles  were  passed  into  the  brain ;  the  same  phe- 
nomena were  evoked,  "except  [that]  the  strength  of  the  current  was  not  suf- 
ficient to  produce  the  epileptiform  attack" ;  only  "muscular  contractions"  and 
"pain  and  tingling  in  the  extremities"  seem  to  have  been  caused.  But  not  yet 
had  she  served  the  demands  of  science.  Of  the  next  experiment  performed,  the 
vivisector  himself  shall  tell  us  the  result: 


American  Jour.  Med.  Sciences,  Vol.  93  (N.  S.,  67),  No.  CXXXIV,  New  Series,  pp. 
310-31 1. 

19 


"Two  days  subsequent  to  observation  4,  Mary  was  brought  down  into  the  electrical  room 
with  the  intention  to  subject  the  posterior  lobes  to  galvanic  excitation.  The  proposed  experiment 
was  abandoned.  She  was  pale  and  depressed ;  her  lips  were  blue ;  and  she  had  evident  difficulty 
in  locomotion.  She  complained  greatly  of  numbness  and  tingling  in  the  right  arm,  shoulder, 
and  foot.  .  .  .  On  further  examination  there  was  found  to  be  decided  paresis  and 
rigidity  of  the  muscles  of  the  right  side  of  the  body.  .  .  .  She  became  very  pale,  her 
eyes  closed,  and  she  was  about  to  pass  into  unconsciouness,  when  we  placed  her  in  the 
recumbent  posture,  and  Dr.  Steeley  gave  her,  at  my  request,  chloroform  by  inhalation."43 

"The  day  after  .  ,  .  Mary  was  decidedly  worse.  She  remained  in  bed,  was  stupid 
and  incoherent.  In  the  evening  she  had  a  convulsive  seizure,  lasting  about  five  minutes,  con- 
fined to  the  right  side.  After  this  attack  she  lapsed  into  profound  unconsciousness,  and 
was  found  to  be  compJetely  paralyzed  on  the  right  side.  .  .  .  No  movements  of  any 
kind  could  be  excited  by  strong  irritation  of  the  skin  of  the  paralyzed  side.  .  .  .  The 
pupils  were  dilated  and  motionless."44 

How  soon  afterward  did  she  die? 

The  report  does  not  tell  us.  We  next  learn  of  the  "autopsy."  The  brain 
was  taken  out,  and  the  track  of  the  needles  traced,  one  having  penetrated  an 
inch  and  a  half  through  the  brain-substance,  its  course  being  marked  "by  some 
diffluent  cerebral  matter."45 

No  coroner  was  called  upon  to  make  an  investigation.  Officially  speak- 
ing, she  was  reported  to  have  died  of  the  disease  from  which  she  had  been  so 
long  suffering. 

And  yet  criticism  was  not  wanting.  In  sundry  periodicals  it  was  hinted 
that  Science  had  gone  a  little  too  far.  The  experimenter  himself  admitted  this 
in  a  letter  to  the  British  Medical  Journal.46  Of  course  he  made  excuses.  In  the 
first  place  he  declared  that  "the  patient  was  hopelessly  diseased."  Secondly, 
"the  patient  consented  to  have  the  experiments  made."  But  twice  he  had  told 
us  that  she  was  "rather  feeble-minded''  and,  of  course,  she  was  in  no  condition 
to  comprehend  the  dangers  of  the  experiment.  Finally,  he  informs  us  that  death 
was  really  due  to  the  progress  of  the  disease.  We  expect  all  this.  No  victim  of 
such  research  will  ever  die  from  any  experiment,  but  from  some  other  cause. 
Yet  the  experimenter  frankly  admitted  that  his  experiments  had  been  injurious. 
He  had  believed,  he  said  afterwards,  that  small  needles  could  be  thus  "introduced 
without  injury  into  the  cerebral  substance.  /  novo  know  that  I  was  mistaken.  To 
repeat  such  experiments  with  the  knowledge  we  now  have  that  injury  will  be 
done  by  them  .  .  .  would  be  in  the  highest  degree  criminal."  But  he 
still  insists  that  in  his  own  case  they  did  not  cause  the  fatal  result.  We  may 
not  agree  with  all  of  his  defence,  but  we  are  in  hearty  accord  with  one  point. 
That  such  experiments  not  only  "would  be" — but  were — "in  the  highest  degree 
criminal,"  is  a  conclusion  about  which  there  will  be  no  divergence  of  opinion 
among  right-thinking  men. 

Dr.  Ferrier,  whose  experiments  upon  monkeys  had  led  indirectly  to  these 
human  vivisections,  declared  in  regard  to  the  experiments  on  Mary  Rafferty,  that 
"whatever  opinion  may  be  entertained  as  to  their  propriety,  they  furnish  facts  of 
great  interest  in  relation  to  the  physiology  of  the  brain."     He  speaks  of  "the 


Same,  p.  311. 
Same,  p.  311. 
Same,  p.  312. 

British  Medical  Journal,  May  30,   1874,  p.  727. 

20 


depth  of  penetration  of  the  needles" ;  refers  to  "the  occurrence  of  epileptic  con- 
vulsions from  general  diffusion  of  the  irritation  when  the  currents  were 
intensified,"  and  finally  distinctly  affirmed  that  the  "epileptic  convulsions  and 
ultimate  paralysis  are  clearly  accounted  for  by  the  inflammatory  changes,  at  first 
causing  irritation  .  .  ."47  In  experiments  upon  animals,  Dr.  Ferrier  tells  us, 
the  same  effects  have  been  observed.  It  seems  apparent  from  the  tenor  of  his 
•communication  that  Dr.  Ferrier,  who  first  made  experiments  of  this  kind  on 
the  brains  of  monkeys,  had  little  doubt  as  to  the  cause  of  Mary  Rafferty's  death. 
Who  made  these  human  vivisections?  Was  it  some  young  surgeon,  just 
beginning  his  career?  Was  it  some  unknown  member  of  the  medical  pro- 
fession, whose  obscurity  renders  him  the  safe  mark  of  general  obloquy?  No. 
These  experiments  upon  a  poor  hospital  patient  were  made  by  one  of  the  most 
eminent  physicians  in  the  United  States.  Among  the  men  composing  the 
faculty  of  one  of  the  best-known  medical  colleges  in  the  United  States,  his  name, 
less  than  half  a  dozen  years  ago,  stood  first  on  the  list. 

"Demoralizing  and  degrading  experiment."  Some  years  since  there  appeared 
in  the  editorial  columns  of  The  New  York  Medical  Record  (edited  by  Dr.  George 
F.  Shrady,  A.  M.),  a  unique  and  vigorous  condemnation  of  a  certain  form  of 
human  experimentation.     One  or  two  sentences  only  can  here  be  quoted : 

"Not  satisfied  with  this,  a  few  progressive  ones  are  going  still  further  .  .  .  and  are 
selecting  women  for  the  baser  purposes  of  demoralising  and  degrading  experiment.     *    *     * 

"There  are  some  things,  such  as  this,  which  even  science  cannot  divest  of  its  immoral 
aspects.  *  *  *  Are  we  not  presuming  a  little  too  much  for  science,  and  are  we  not  drift- 
ing into  an  indifference  to  ordinary  decency,  which,  as  a  learned  and  dignified  profession, 
we  should  take  every  pains  to  prevent?"48 

Regarding  Human  Vivisection,  what  is  the  attitude  of  the  eminent  surgeons 
and  physicians,  who  keep  before  the  public  eye,  of  the  editors  of  the  leading 
medical  journals,  the  representatives  of  medical  opinion?  Are  deeds  such  as 
have  been  herein  described  regarded  as  laudable,  if  performed  only  upon  the 
ignorant  and  poor,  in  the  name  of  Science? 

No  such  creed  is  openly  professed.  Is  it  held  in  secret?  Take  the  repre- 
sentative medical  journals  in  the  United  States.  No  one  can  attack  or  criticize 
the  cruelties  pertaining  to  animal  vivisection  without  finding  them,  one  and  all, 
eager  to  maintain  the  right  of  the  vivisector  to  carry  on  his  experiments  exactly 
as  he  may  wish.  How  do  they  stand  toward  the  men  who  make  experiments 
upon  human  beings?  Possibly  we  may  judge  of  their  real  attitude  by  what 
they  have  not  done.  During  the  past  quarter  of  a  century,  has  a  single  human 
vivisector  been  mentioned  by  name  with  condemnation  and  rebuke  in  the  editorial 
columns  of  any  medical  journal  of  the  United  States  that  upholds  the  unlimited 
vivisection  of  animals  ?    For  any  such  condemnation  we  have  searched  in  vain. 

Can  we  imagine  that  the  editors  of  medical  journals  throughout  the  United 
States  would  be  so  absolutely  indifferent  to  the  atrocities  of  human  vivisection 
— printed  and  described  in  their  own  columns — unless,  in  reality,  such  deeds 
are  regarded  as  excusable,  if  they  are  done  "in  the  name  of  Science"?  We  know 
that  this  is  the  ground  upon  which  they  justify  or  defend  the  worst  excesses  of 

4T.     The  London  Medical  Record,  May  13,  1874;  vol.  2,  pp.  285  and  286. 
**.     The  Medical  Record  of  New  York,  Vol.  7,  pp.  469,  470.  1 

21 


animal  vivisection.     Does  it  not  also  seem  to  them  to  apply  equally  to  the  vivi- 
section of  babes? 

Let  us  have  light  on  this  matter.  It  was  in  the  Bulletin  of  The  Johns  Hop- 
kins Hospital  of  July,  1897,  p.  137,  that  a  physician,  connected  with  Johns  Hop- 
kins University,  gave  an  account  of  his  experiments  upon  insane  patients,  made, 
as  he  tells  us,  "for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  the  toxicity"  (or  poisonous  quali- 
ties) of  a  certain  drug.  Will  any  professor  of  Johns  Hopkins  University,  now  tell 
us  when,  and  where,  he  ever  denounced  by  name  that  experimenter  upon  defence- 
less men  and  women?  Can  he  mention  a  single  experimenter  upon  women  and 
children  whom  he  has  ever  denounced,  or  ever  reproved — by  name?  Take  the 
editors  of  the  medical  periodicals  to  which  we  have  just  referred.  During  the 
past  twenty  years,  has  there  appeared  in  the  columns  of  these  journals,  a  single 
sentence  wherein  any  one  of  the  vivisectors  of  defenceless  women  and  little 
children  has  been  by  name  specifically  condemned?  It  was  the  Journal  of  the 
American  Medical  Association  of  Chicago,  which,  in  its  issue  of  Aug.  4,  1900 
(p.  271),  published  the  statement  of  a  New  York  surgeon,  who  confessed  that  in 
order  "to  test  the  efficiency  of"  a  newly-imported  instrument,  he  had  made  two 
poor  women,  suffering  from  internal  disease,  undergo  a  most  serious  surgical 
operation,  although  "they  were  strictly  inoperable  cases,  from  the  standpoint  of 
cure."  Can  the  Journal  now  point  to  a  single  sentence  in  its  columns  wherein  a 
human  vivisector  like  this  has  been  denounced  by  name  ?  It  was  the  Medical  Rec- 
ord of  New  York  which,  in  its  issue  of  Sept.  10,  1892  (p.  297),  permitted  an 
American  vivisector  of  children  to  describe  the  inoculation  of  innocent  little  girls 
with  the  virus  of  the  most  awful  disease  known  to  humanity.  Will  the  editor 
of  the  Medical  Record  point  out  any  denunciation  of  this  experimenter,  or  of  any 
other  vivisector  of  his  kind,  which  has  appeared  in  its  editorial  columns?  It 
was  the  Medical  News  of  Philadelphia  which  in  its  issue  of  April  1,  1899  (Vol. 
74,  p.  388),  published  an  article  referring  to  the  "inoculations  of  cancer  from  man 
to  man,"  "done  both  intentionally  and  successfully"  by  an  experimenter  who  "is 
discreetly  silent  with  regard  to  details."  Will  the  editor  of  the  Medical  News 
quote  some  editorial  expression  of  its  "repulsion"  concerning  this  criminal,  and 
any  word  of  denunciation  of  any  other  human  vivisector  which  ever  appeared 
in  its  editorial  columns  ?  It  was  the  Boston  Medical  and  Surgical  Journal  which, 
in  its  issues  of  Aug.  6,  1896  (Vol.  135,  pp.  132-136),  and  Aug.  13,  1896  (Vol. 
J35>  PP-  :56-i6o),  gave  to  the  world  an  account  of  "some  experimental  work," 
made  upon  sick  and  dying  children  in  a  Boston  hospital.  Will  the  editor  of  that 
periodical  point  us  to  any  passage  in  its  columns  wherein  this  vivisector  of 
infants  was  condemned? 

Among  all  of  these  journals,  is  there  a  single  one  that  even  now  dares  to 
come  out  in  clear  and  outspoken  condemnation  of  the  men  who  have  performed 
such  experiments  as  we  have  named?  We  know  what  to  expect.  Some  vague 
and  meaningless  protest  against  "improper  methods  of  scientific  investigation," 
some  appeal  for  prudence  in  the  publication  of  scientific  experiments,  some  at- 
tempts at  exculpation  or  defence — and  bitter  denunciation  of  this  exposure — 
these,  of  course,  will  appear.  But  is  it  not  possible  to  hope  for  more  than  this? 
If  it  must  be  admitted  that  not  a  single  human  vivisector  has  been  condemned 
by  the  journals  we  have  mentioned,  may  not  some  reparation  be  made  by  the 

22 


emphasis  of  their  future  utterances?  At  the  beginning  of  a  new  century,  we 
are  confronted  by  great  problems.  One  of  these  is  human  vivisection  in  the 
name  of  scientific  research.  We  appeal,  then,  to  the  medical  press  of  America 
to  break  that  unfortunate  silence  which  seems  to  justify  or,  at  least,  to  condone 
it.  Now  and  henceforth,  will  it  not  join  us  in  condemning  every  such  vivisector 
of  little  children,  every  such  experimenter  upon  human  beings?  We  make 
this  appeal  to  it,  in  the  name  of  Justice  and  Humanity,  and  for  the  sake  of 
millions  yet  unborn. 

What  is  the  remedy  for  Human  Vivisection? 

It  has  been  practiced  by  men  of  national  reputation.  It  is  condoned,  de- 
fended, apologized  for  by  exponents  of  the  new  creed — that  Science  brooks  no 
interference  with  her  methods,  and  is  supreme  in  her  own  sphere.  There  is  but 
one  remedy.  It  is  legislation.  An  awakened  public  sentiment  must  demand 
that  experiments  like  these,  upon  the  poor,  the  defenceless,  the  ignorant  and 
'.the  weak,  shall  no  longer  be  permitted  but  shall  constitute  a  crime  in  every 
American  commonwealth.  To  this  end  we  invite  the  cooperation  of  all  into 
whose  hands  this  pamphlet  may  come. 

S.  R.  TABER, 
Secretary  of  Vivisection  Reform  Society. 


23 


FORM   OF  BEQUEST. 


I  hereby  give  and  bequeath  the  sum  of_ 


.Dollars 


to  the  VIVISECTION  REFORM  SOCIETY,  a  corporation  organized  and 
existing  under  the  laws  of  the  United  States,  for  its  corporate  uses  and 
purposes. 


